Anonymous wrote:ANC 3F doesn’t have it on the agenda because we are not allowed to say vouchers are related to crime as ward 3 residents. They’ll just respond with “you’re rich and entitled”
Get rid of the vouchers!!!!
Anonymous wrote: I've heard of people moving from VA and elsewhere and getting a voucher in far less than a year. Also people from encampments that are cleared are offered vouchers right away.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The more we discuss this, the more it seems absolutely bonkers to house the chronically homeless (by definition, having some sort of severe mental and/or addiction) in private buildings using above market-rate vouchers. Like, calculated to lead to failure on multiple levela. Private *market-rate* voucher solutions make sense for people who just have an affordability problem. But turning private buildings into unstaffed low barriee homeless shelters is nuttttttssss.
Agree. HF frames the issue as housing and as having requirements for entry, compelled participation in services, requiring sobriety, all the things shelters traditionally did.
If the issue is framed as substance abuse and/or MI, then the solution is nuts. But, those things cost a lot of money to address and there is no huge pot of funds for developers to kick back from, so...
To be clear, I actually think Housing First is the solution. I don’t think you have to coerce people into treatment. But the housing should be public and fully staffed and only for the chronic homeless. Once stabilized they could possibly step up.
Anonymous wrote:The more we discuss this, the more it seems absolutely bonkers to house the chronically homeless (by definition, having some sort of severe mental and/or addiction) in private buildings using above market-rate vouchers. Like, calculated to lead to failure on multiple levela. Private *market-rate* voucher solutions make sense for people who just have an affordability problem. But turning private buildings into unstaffed low barriee homeless shelters is nuttttttssss.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The more we discuss this, the more it seems absolutely bonkers to house the chronically homeless (by definition, having some sort of severe mental and/or addiction) in private buildings using above market-rate vouchers. Like, calculated to lead to failure on multiple levela. Private *market-rate* voucher solutions make sense for people who just have an affordability problem. But turning private buildings into unstaffed low barriee homeless shelters is nuttttttssss.
Agree. HF frames the issue as housing and as having requirements for entry, compelled participation in services, requiring sobriety, all the things shelters traditionally did.
If the issue is framed as substance abuse and/or MI, then the solution is nuts. But, those things cost a lot of money to address and there is no huge pot of funds for developers to kick back from, so...
Anonymous wrote:The more we discuss this, the more it seems absolutely bonkers to house the chronically homeless (by definition, having some sort of severe mental and/or addiction) in private buildings using above market-rate vouchers. Like, calculated to lead to failure on multiple levela. Private *market-rate* voucher solutions make sense for people who just have an affordability problem. But turning private buildings into unstaffed low barriee homeless shelters is nuttttttssss.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do you have a link for people not being eligible for housing for a year after arrival in DC? That is contrary to some things I have heard.
Here's the eligibility they have listed on their site:
https://dhs.dc.gov/page/permanent-supportive-housing-individuals-and-families-project-based-tenant-based-local-veterans
1. 1+ years of documented chronic homelessness (1 consecutive year or experienced 4 episodes of homelessness within the last 3 years that accumulate to at least 1+ year) and chronic disabling condition
2. Limited income earning potential
3. Need for intensive case management
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/from-0-to-7000-one-dc-agency-charts-voucher-renters-in-its-programs-since-2016/
Also links to this article:
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/apartment-updates-new-nuisance-building-at-van-ness-tenant-leaders-request-meeting-with-mayor/
Which talks about tenant leaders meeting with Frumin to discuss these problems in May of 2022. It's now over a year later, and he doesn't have a plan.
Has any District leader said what the end goal of the voucher program is? Can homeless people just move to D.C., stay a year, and then get the District to pay for their upper NW apartments for life? We had ~4,000 homeless people living D.C. in 2015:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/with-4000-in-homeless-shelters-dc-on-pace-to-eclipse-record-set-last-year/2015/01/29/e74de4ca-a7c4-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html
https://streetsensemedia.org/article/single-adult-shelters-issues-briefiing-dc/
Now we have more than twice that amount of vouchers alone (and when you consider one voucher could be for a family with multiple individuals, we're talking about an even larger number). More than 1.2% of the population, and the number has been growing every year.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Agree. And many in AU Park, Forest Hills and SV support all of the above and "like the sound of" restorative justice. Removing the penalty of losing license for not paying traffic fines was another issue where Cheh raised concerns but voted for it anyway, and we've seen more mayhem on the streets.
This is it. A lot of people in these areas want to appear "with it," and will follow wherever the activists tell them to go. Some neighbors will quietly tell you they disagree with the craziness, but few have the courage to risk the wrath of the radicals. Look how often people get accused of being racist on here just for saying they want less crime (something polls show is the top issue for D.C. residents).
That's how bullies are being handled - with meek acquiescence. I wouldn't be surprised if more people are willing to move out of the area than to stand up for it.
People are only willing to speak up about what's right when these failures really hit home. But by the time most people are willing to speak up, it's going to take years to dig ourselves out of this hole and get back to where things were a decade ago.